Skip to content

fix: allow processing users to run code in s3 #1167

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 13, 2019
Merged

fix: allow processing users to run code in s3 #1167

merged 3 commits into from
Dec 13, 2019

Conversation

andremoeller
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #, if available:

#1163

Description of changes:

  • fixes ScriptProcessor and its inheriting classes to let users specify and run code in S3 to fix issue 1163.
  • adds validation on the URL scheme for code, SKLearn versions, whether the file exists.
  • adds unit tests to test code schemes and new validation
  • unit tests changes:
    • tests changed to test ScriptProcessor directly rather than through SKLearnProcessor. SKLearnProcessor tests test added behavior added for SKLearn.
    • added "required_parameters" and "all_parameters" tests for the other two Processing classes.
    • refactored unit tests to avoid repetitive constructors and expectations.

Testing done:

Merge Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your pull request.

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
  • I used the commit message format described in CONTRIBUTING
  • I have used the regional endpoint when creating S3 and/or STS clients (if appropriate)
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if appropriate)
  • I have checked that my tests are not configured for a specific region or account (if appropriate)
  • I have updated any necessary documentation, including READMEs and API docs (if appropriate)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

fix: allow processing users to run code in s3
4afccba 
Add validation and unit tests for Processing
@andremoeller andremoeller mentioned this pull request Dec 13, 2019
Closed
@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

knakad
knakad previously approved these changes Dec 13, 2019
View reviewed changes
src/sagemaker/processing.py
code_url = urlparse(code)
return os.path.basename(code_url.path)

def _handle_user_code_url(self, code):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you mean to also validate that the s3 path is a directory and not a file? As it stands that validation only occurs for elif code_url.scheme == "" or code_url.scheme == "file":

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you mean to also validate that the s3 path is a directory and not a file

Nope, keeping the validation just to the "local" case is intentional. We'd have to make a service call to S3 to validate this in the S3 case, since the S3 path is a prefix to a collection of objects, and the file / directory distinction doesn't exist in S3.

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@andremoeller @knakad
Update src/sagemaker/processing.py
bbac568 
Co-Authored-By: Karim Nakad <karimnakad@gmail.com>
@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@sagemaker-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@ajaykarpur ajaykarpur merged commit 425390e into aws:master Dec 13, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
2 more reviewers

@ajaykarpur ajaykarpur ajaykarpur approved these changes

@knakad knakad knakad left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@andremoeller @sagemaker-bot @ajaykarpur @knakad